Talk:Eugene V. Debs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Vonnegut book

Moved from the article:

Hey the Vonnegut book you are thinking of is actually "Jailbird," not "Hocus Pocus." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.88.39 (talk • contribs) 14:20, October 23, 2006.

Reading the associated articles for each work, it appears that the article's original text was correct. Slambo (Speak) 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC) I read Hocus Pocus recently. That was the right book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.213.151 (talk • contribs) 17:02, May 15, 2007.

[edit] Violent Pullman strike

Removed from article:

National Guard fires on Pullman strikers, from Harper's Weekly (1894)
National Guard fires on Pullman strikers, from Harper's Weekly (1894)
By the end of the strike, 13 strikers were killed and 57 were wounded.

This image and sentence implies that soldiers opened fire on strikers (which would usually be unethical); that the soldiers murdered a dozen men on the orders of a pro-capitalist government.

It sounds awfully one-sided to me. Is it meant to conjure up the image of Kent State student protesters being shot by National Guard in 1970? The latter is a clearcut case of overreaction (guardsmen committed manslaughter at best, in my opinion as a former US soldier).

We need to say how many guardsmen were attacked or wounded during the Pullman strike. Most importantly, we must reveal the motive of their decision to start firing. Did they fire in self-defense, or what?

Without a description of what preceded the shooting, it smacks of an anti-army position on the matter, even an anti-government position.

We should not be anti-US or anti-socialist but present a neutral account. --Uncle Ed 12:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The strike turns violent

  • The reaction of the strikers to the appearance of the troops was that of outrage. What had been a basically peaceful strike turned into complete mayhem. The mayhem began on July 4, with mobs of people setting off fireworks and tipping over rail cars. The workers started to tip railcars and build blockades in reaction to the presence of the federal troops. ... At this time in the Chicago vicinity, there were 6,000 federal and state troops, 3,100 police, and 5,000 deputy marshals. However, all this manpower could not prevent the violence from peaking when on July 7, national guardsmen after being assaulted, fired into the crowd killing at least four (possibly up to thirty) and wounding at least twenty. [1]

Here it seems that (1) the guardsmen were assaulted, and after that (2) they fired into the crowd.

We can compare this to the incident in Iraq (dramatized in the Samuel Jackson film Rules of Engagement). A crowed of Iraqi civilians, including some armed men, opened fire on coalition forces. U.S. Marines returned fire. The press accounts at the time discounted or entirely ignored the order of events; or directly denied US reports that the first shots came from the crowed. In both the movie and the real incident, the propriety of the US forces shooting into the crowd depended on whether they were "shooting back" or "opening fire" - two distinct ethical categories. --Uncle Ed 13:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism and world peace

Article displays pro-socialist bias by implying that "capitalism" is anti-peace or otherwise "bad".

Isn't it the case that free market economies and democracy contribute more to peace than socialism and totalitarianism? See Rummell's democratic peace theory. --Uncle Ed 17:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the bias. If you are refererring to this sentence:
In 1924, Eugene Debs was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Finnish Socialist Karl H. Wiik on the ground that "Debs started to work actively for peace during World War I, mainly because he considered the war to be in the interest of capitalism."[2]
then I'm afraid I have to disagree. Stating that Wiik believed that Debs believed that the war was in the interest of capitalism really isn't the same thing as stating that the war actually was in the interest of capitalism. Or even that Debs believed it was, for that matter.
Or am I missing something? Hemmingsen 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to concur that bias is lacking in this quotation. It's not saying that capitalism=war, but that a cothinker thought that Debs felt that World War I was for capitalism. As to your question, I disagree, but an encyclopedia has no business determining whether socialism or capitalism is better for peace. The quotation is good for an encyclopedia biography of Debs and that's all it should be. Cadriel 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for clarifying that. --Uncle Ed 15:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, since this seems to be settled, I'm going to remove your hidden comments in the article. Hemmingsen 15:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very misleading paragraph in article

The article states:

Yet Debs was equally uncomfortable with the apolitical syndicalism of some within the Industrial Workers of the World. While he was an early supporter of the IWW, helping organize it in 1905, he was later appalled by what he considered the IWW's irresponsible advocacy of direct action, especially sabotage. He quit the group in 1908.

Taken statement by statement, it is all somewhat true. However, it is also very misleading.

Debs quit the IWW for a very different reason than his being "appalled" at the IWW's use of sabotage. The real reason is alluded to in the first sentence. In 1908 the Wobbly "overalls brigade," what DeLeon referred to as the "bummery," used their numbers to rewrite the constitution to forbid direct participation in electoral politics as an IWW method of action. The overalls brigade were lumberjacks who had tired of political infighting between the two socialist factions, and wanted an "industrial action" union (which the organization remains to this day.) DeLeon and Debs both got the hint, and both left the IWW in 1908.

The IWW didn't begin to consider sabotage as a tactic until 1910. At that time, the IWW press <in their first mentions of the terms "sabotage" and "direct action," according to Fred W. Thompson, in The I.W.W.: Its First Seventy Years, page 46> praised a group of strikers in Chicago who had used "sabotage," which at that time was still defined as "malingering or inefficient work." <Thompson, page 81. For more, see sabotage.> The broader definitions of sabotage didn't come until later, and <Thompson states,> were brought to public notice by the fight over section 6 article 2 of the Socialist Party's constitution.

But the disagreement that resulted in Section 6 article 2, and caused Haywood's expulsion was most likely a more direct result of a speech that Haywood gave in which he called for "overthrowing the capitalist system by forcible means if necessary." <Roughneck, Peter Carlson, page 158.> A number of Socialists were getting elected, and this speech embarrassed them.

In his autobiography Haywood did describe disappointment with Deb's criticism of the IWW's tactical polemics, and argued that Debs, DeLeon & O'Neill were criticizing tactics that the IWW had never adopted.

But i think that the paragraph in the Debs article appears to suggest that Debs quit because of this issue; in fact, that isn't the case at all.

I also believe that in its use of the word "appalled," the paragraph overstates Deb's opposition to what the IWW was preaching. Haywood said that in spite of criticizing the IWW for being "anarchist," Debs had previously been friendly to the organization, and was friendly to the IWW afterwards. <Haywood autobiography, page 279>

At the time of Haywood's being thrown out of the Socialist Party, Debs used language such as,

I regretted to see Haywood's recall but it was inevitable... I should not have put section 6 (article 2) in the constitution but it is there and put there by the party and Haywood deliberately violated it.

But he also declared in the same letter,

Certainly I approve of some of the practices that go under the name of sabotage, for almost everything goes under that name. The answer is the same as to law-breaking... I must know what the circumstances are... <Debs letter to William English Walling, March 5, 1913>

These excerpts are a little out of context, but serve to illustrate my point. I contend that Debs was opposed to how far Haywood and the IWW pushed the question of advocating sabotage. I contend that Debs was not "appalled." A more accurate descriptive term, then, would be "opposed." And the sentences need to be re-arranged to introduce some clarity about the timeline of events. Richard Myers 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American anarchists

I deleted this category as it seem misleading. Debs was not identified with anarchism politically. If the editor made the categorization as a result of his early involvement and continued support for the IWW, this is also inaccurate. Debs endorsed the IWW as an industrial unionist organization, not on account of adherence to syndicalism. DJ Silverfish 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I support this decision.
best wishes, Richard Myers 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This needs some fact checking.

I'm in the middle of a project right now for history, but it seems to me that the math doesn't quite add up when it comes to his life and age, in particular the part discussing his early employment at the age of fourteen.

Greylance 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradict

"...he underestimated the lasting power of racism" but at the same time denounced it more than any other important public figure in American Socialism? Seems to contradict itself to me. VanTucky 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It also doesn't mention this Adversary in the House, namely that his wife hateed his socialistic activities. Trevor GH5 11:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I took the {{contradict}} tag off. I seems to me this has been addressed, as the phrase "more than any other" now reads a more modest "Debs was more advanced on this issue than many others in the Socialist Party"--Bookandcoffee 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Numbers

Don't add up... maybe I'm misreading this but it appears to say that 3.4 percent in more than six.

--No it doesn't. 6% in 1912 meant less votes than 3,4% in 1920 due to the increasing of voters. Debs got a higher percentage in 1912, but more votes in 1920. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.91.88 (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Worry

Isn't it POV to say that Debs underestimated the lasting power of racism? I happen to agree with that statement, because I think racial issues are more fundamental in explaining some racial phenomena than class issues are. But surely this issue is a matter of opinion, one on which scholars disagree. Some scholars do remain convinced that economic factors like the ones Marx pointed to are much more fundamental, and thus they would think Debs was correct to focus on economic issues, with problems of racial disparity being solved by resolving class differences. That's still the standard Marxian view, even if many on the left and the right disagree with it. At any rate, it doesn't come across as encyclopedic in tone. It comes across as opinion-laden commentary. Parableman 13:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)